The Lunar Soapbox...

[Turtle]

:) :) :hyper: 0.o aside, Strikes me as a serious question (though I’ve been accused of taking everything as a serious question ;))....

You rock Craig! :D

 

Further assuming the maximum colonization rate, the planned start date of 2024, and a 50/50 male/female ratio, we can expect the first baby around 2040 to 2240.

Miss Scarlet! I don know nuthin' 'bout birthin' no babies!

 

Seems not even the NASA folks can agree on this one. :rant:

 

Officials working with NASA gave conflicting views during a meeting of space scientists on Wednesday, a week after the U.S. space agency announced that it plans to build a permanently occupied lunar base, with human flights slated to begin by 2020.

 

Will NASA's plans turn into a moondoggle? - Space News - MSNBC.com

[Tormod]

Seems not even the NASA folks can agree on this one. :rant:

 

I would frankly be very concerned if they DID agree. We're talking a massive undertaking here, where people with different agendas have roles. That disagreement is out in the open is a good thing for both NASA and the public.

[Tormod]

They can't justify it. It is a selfish PR campaign.

 

PR for what? If it's selfish...who is it selfish for? The thousands of employees at the companies who have been contracted to build the Ares rockets and the Orion CEV? And the remaining infrastructure?

 

There is no good reasons (benefiting mankind) for going to the moon anytime soon.

 

Define "anytime soon". There are many good reasons, some of which are:

 

1. expanding human presence beyond Earth

2. exploring our double planetary system. Exploring the Moon teaches us a lot of things about the origins of the Earth.

3. The technical innovations required for such and undertaking benefit a lot of industries in many fields, such as medicine, materials, engineering, theoretical physics, geology, physiology, meteorology (to mention a few).

 

I take it from your phrasing that you see some good reasons that do NOT benefit mankind. What would be your examples of such?

 

they wouldn't never said that, but that is the truth.

 

According to who? Is there someone handing out monopolies on truth in this matter?

 

The money could easily be used better elsewhere.

 

The money IS being used elsewhere. Money doesn't grow on trees. We are talking giant, long-term, high risk investments here. The money for this is coming from years of investments in business innovation, technology, frontier studies, education, and pure investments. Much of it is collected by taxes. A country will not be able to go to the Moon without the necessary finances and skill set.

 

If i wanted to be impressed, i would rather watch a movie. Would be alot cheaper too.

 

It's a good thing NASA isn't out to impress you, then. Who gave you that impression?

 

A moon colony would be a very expensive laboratory, far far away. Just silly.

 

It would be a very expensive laboratory, indeed. That does not explain why you think it is silly.

 

we covered the planet, because we could easily adapt to every place we arrived. The moon and space is a different kind of challenge.

 

I disagree. We could not easily adapt to every place we arrived. There are plenty of places where people can't easily live on Earth. That we can breathe the air doesn't mean that an area is sustainable. The Moon is a place that probably cannot be terraformed. But Mars is. Establishing a presence on the Moon will be the first steps towards crewed missions to Mars. Mars has as much landmass as the Earth, and the prospect of colonizing it is extremely exciting. The Moon will be a necessary stepping stone, and is in itself perhaps the most extreme project ever undertaken.

 

And it seems we are busy un-adapting the environment to us, which means we might have to start living in not so friendly environments within a few decades, if we're unlucky. Exploring space, and trying to live in it, is a reasonable step for humanity to take.

[niin]

PR for what? If it's selfish...who is it selfish for? The thousands of employees at the companies who have been contracted to build the Ares rockets and the Orion CEV? And the remaining infrastructure?

 

I don't claim to know why exactly they are having this PR campaign. I just think that it is a PR campaign.

Are you saying that any project is okay, just so long as it benefit....someone? No matter how much better you could use the money?

I claim that it is selfish for the US government. That is what i meant with PR campaign.

 

Define "anytime soon". There are many good reasons, some of which are:

 

1. expanding human presence beyond Earth

2. exploring our double planetary system. Exploring the Moon teaches us a lot of things about the origins of the Earth.

3. The technical innovations required for such and undertaking benefit a lot of industries in many fields, such as medicine, materials, engineering, theoretical physics, geology, physiology, meteorology (to mention a few).

 

I take it from your phrasing that you see some good reasons that do NOT benefit mankind. What would be your examples of such?

 

1) this is not a good reason for doing it now. There is no urgent need for that.

2) new knowledge is always nice, but where is the urgent need? Could we get the knowledge cheaper? I think we could.

3) Why don't we just fund this technical innovation directly? It would't be so impressive i know. But still...why not?

 

According to who? Is there someone handing out monopolies on truth in this matter?

 

According to me. I am putting forth my own view. I am not just accepting other peoples arguments without scrutiny.

I did not claim any monopoly on truth. Are you trying to shoot down my argument without a fair discussion?

 

The money IS being used elsewhere. Money doesn't grow on trees. We are talking giant, long-term, high risk investments here. The money for this is coming from years of investments in business innovation, technology, frontier studies, education, and pure investments. Much of it is collected by taxes. A country will not be able to go to the Moon without the necessary finances and skill set.

 

Another example of you talking about something i never said. I never said that no money is used. Where do you get this from?

 

It would be a very expensive laboratory, indeed. That does not explain why you think it is silly.

If that is all it is (expensive laboratory), it would be a total waste of money. I think that the International Space Station is fine enough space laboratory.

 

I disagree. We could not easily adapt to every place we arrived.

 

You said yourself that we covered the planet. The places i talk about is the same places you think we are now occupying in our covering of the planet.

 

And it seems we are busy un-adapting the environment to us, which means we might have to start living in not so friendly environments within a few decades, if we're unlucky. Exploring space, and trying to live in it, is a reasonable step for humanity to take.

 

I would rather use money on saving the environment then.

I never said that it would never be a good idea for humankind to explore space.

I think that right now, we could use the money better on other projects.

[Turtle]

I don't claim to know why exactly they are having this PR campaign. I just think that it is a PR campaign.

Are you saying that any project is okay, just so long as it benefit....someone? No matter how much better you could use the money?

I claim that it is selfish for the US government. That is what i meant with PR campaign.

 

Just to put things into perspective, the US government, as well as US private citizens, provide as much if not more aid to the world than any other country on the planet. That is, and has been, our democratic choice, and if we choose to go to the Moon with some of our resources it's our business. :rant:

[niin]

Just to put things into perspective, the US government, as well as US private citizens, provide as much if not more aid to the world than any other country on the planet. That is, and has been, our democratic choice, and if we choose to go to the Moon with some of our resources it's our business. :weather_storm:

 

You are a big country. So a big aid is only to be expected.

I am not saying that it is not your business. I am just saying that you can't justify it.

If you don't care about using your money wisly, well, that is your democratic choice.

[Turtle]

You are a big country. So a big aid is only to be expected.

I guess no one has informed the Soviets (Russians?), Saudis, Chinese, or other big and/or wealthy nations of this.

I am not saying that it is not your business. I am just saying that you can't justify it.

 

I say that is only an opinion. Time may tell, but even today can we say that the exploratory and exploitive activities of the Dutch East India Company were justified expenditures or not? :shrug:

[Boerseun]

Just to put things into perspective, the US government, as well as US private citizens, provide as much if not more aid to the world than any other country on the planet. That is, and has been, our democratic choice, and if we choose to go to the Moon with some of our resources it's our business.

'Course it's your business! And who are we to interfere?

 

...but read the premise as laid out in the first post, again:

 

I'm not an American, so the end result won't affect me, at all. But will the US be better of going to the Moon, or spending all those shekels on education, rather?

[TheBigDog]

'Course it's your business! And who are we to interfere?

 

...but read the premise as laid out in the first post, again:

 

I'm not an American, so the end result won't affect me, at all. But will the US be better of going to the Moon, or spending all those shekels on education, rather?

 

I would venture that more will be learned by all of the world by continuing to explore the moon and beyond than would be learned if the same money were put into educating people about what is already known.

 

Funding is the not problem with education in the US. Especially federal funding. Most educational funding in the US is done at the state and local level. We spend more on education in the US than on anything else. The US educational problems are more cultural than anything else.

 

Bill

[CraigD]

I would venture that more will be learned by all of the world by continuing to explore the moon and beyond than would be learned if the same money were put into educating people about what is already known.

I agree. Also, heavily publicized manned spaceflight programs have an intangible, difficult-to-measure or predict effect on education due to their influence on the school age population – the “to be an astronaut” factor.

Funding is the not problem with education in the US.

I agree

Especially federal funding. Most educational funding in the US is done at the state and local level.

Correct.

We spend more on education in the US than on anything else.

Though I’ve examined only the most recent US Federal and Maryland state budgets, I think this is incorrect.

 

Though budgets are complex and difficult to categorize simply and precisely, Education constitutes about 2% of the Federal budget of about $2700 billion, compared to about 48% for Social Security and Medicare, and about 30% for Defense. For Maryland’s $29B, Education is about 44%, vs. 24% for Healthcare, and 12% for Transportation. The total budget for all States is about half that of the Federal, so, by my estimation, Education is behind Entitlements, Healthcare, and Defense.

 

NASA’s budget is $16B, about 0.6% of the total Federal budget. (sources: Budget of the United States Government, FY 2007; Maryland State Budget - FY2007 appropriations summary; Fast Fact Detail)

The US educational problems are more cultural than anything else.

I agree – but aren’t essentially all social problems cultural?